Virtual hunting? Or "video target practice using live animals"?
Thanks to Fiend for sending me the link to this story, about a proposed California law prohibiting "computer-assisted hunting", in which an Internet user remotely controls a gun and shoots at live game. Snopes doesn't list such "virtual hunting" as a hoax or April-Fool news story, and it doesn't strike me as inherently implausible, so I'm taking it at face value.
My own reaction is on record via e'mail, but I'm curious what others think.
The Public Domain
A forum for discussion of news, politics, art, culture, and anything else that comes to mind. Rant, rave, and ruminate.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Previous Posts
- Stability of CD-R and DVD-R mediaThe April issue o...
- Truth in journalism?I initially thought this story...
- A mess of April FishesThanks to Fiend for this com...
- Ignatius in (Hollywood Development) HellStephen So...
- It's For Our Own GoodPerhaps an amusing "tirade ag...
- From The Chronicle of Higher Education:Harvard Uni...
- And what if ..."Experts back Harvard president's g...
- Leftie ToleranceElite university faculty, brillian...
- Librarian at New York Public gives advice on catal...
- A blue day Smith's B-3 to roar no more; organist ...
3 Comments:
I say end all hunting full stop. Delusions of Elmer Fudd grandeur must be put to rest.
Queen Elizabeth II bagged the last legal tiger in India in the 60's. I've never hated the monarchy more. Boo hiss.
limes
Do you demand an end to all use of meat and leather from domestically-raised animals, as well? If not, what principled distinction do you draw between killing wild and domestic animals? Or between a human beings and other predators, such as wolves, cougars, foxes, etc.?
Have you ever lived in a non-urban area in which hunting, fishing, etc., were ordinary, practical activities instead of exotic and costly recreations for the "leisure class"? It seems to me that makes a big difference in the way people view this question. For example, I'm pretty sure the fox-hunting ban in England was motivated more by class warfare than by any practical benefits to be gained through any such ban, or any consistently-applied principle against killing animals, as evidenced by the fact that most Britons continue to happily chow down on meats of various kinds.
In a strictly utilitarian sense I would say there's a big difference between killing for sport and killing for survival. I don't think the human animal has more of a right to enjoyment than the non-human animal has a right to life.
Then again, I also don't approve of farm factory techniques that needlessly cause animals to suffer. If people are going to kill animals to feed human animals, at least make it as humane as possible.
In summary (my opinions on the topic):
1. Killing for sport is despicable.
2. Killing for food/survival is neutral, but do it humanely.
3. If the govt were to ban the killing of all animals, I'd be very happy and wouldn't have any difficulties living comfortably.
Fin
limes
Post a Comment
<< Home